(Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying this Court, to direct the respondent Nos.2 to withdraw the case in Crime No.382 of 2019 dated 03.05.2019 on the file of the respondent No.5 and entrust the same to the respondent No.4 for an investigation of the case by a competent officer or any other independent investigating agency and file a final report before the Jurisdictional Magistrate within the time stipulated by this Court.)

1. This petition has been filed by the defacto complainant in Crime No. 382 of 2019 on the file of the fifth respondent police, seeking transfer of the investigation.

(A). Factual Matrix:

2. A perusal of the records reveals that the petitioner's daughter was married to one Raja Durgesh on 25.08.2018 and that she died in suspicious circumstances on 03.05.2019. An FIR was registered in Crime No.382 of 2019 on the file of the fifth respondent police under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. A final report was filed on 22.08.2019, closing the case as a mistake of fact.

3. The petitioner filed a protest petition before the jurisdictional Magistrate, and an order was passed directing the jurisdictional police to conduct further investigation. As there was no progress, the petitioner filed Crl.OP(MD).No.6391 of 2025 seeking transfer of the investigation. By order dated 16.10.2025, this Court directed the petitioner to appear before the respondent police for enquiry and directed the respondent to complete the investigation and file a final report. This Court further directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Karimedu, to monitor the investigation.

4. Alleging that the respondent police had not conducted a proper investigation, the petitioner sent several representations. He thereafter filed Crl.OP(MD).No.1664 of 2026 before this Court seeking transfer of the investigation. By order dated 02.02.2026, this Court directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai, to undertake further investigation, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to monitor that investigation from time to time.

5. In the light of the above facts, the present petition has been filed seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBCID.

(B). Submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side:

6. According to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, the investigation ought to be transferred to another agency for the following reasons:

                     (a) Notwithstanding the direction issued by this Court in Crl.OP(MD).No.1664 of 2026, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, is not monitoring the investigation.

                     (b) The investigating officer, namely the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thilagar Thidal Police Station, Madurai, is pressing the petitioner to take back the jewels and not to pursue the matter any further.

                     (c) During the investigation by the jurisdictional police, a Nokia phone used by the deceased was recovered by the police officer; the police now deny that recovery. According to the petitioner, that phone would show the messages exchanged between the deceased and her husband on the date of occurrence, namely 03.05.2019.

                     (d) After this Court passed its order on 02.02.2026, the petitioner sent a detailed representation dated 04.06.2026 to the first respondent, pointing out the inaction of the third respondent and his non-compliance with the order of this Court. Despite that representation, the first respondent has taken no action so far.

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the first accused had sent an SMS to the deceased on 04.01.2019, which led to her taking her life on 03.05.2019. He submitted that 03.05.2019 was the date of hearing in the HMOP proceedings between the parties, that messages were exchanged between the husband and the wife on that date, and that this resulted in her death. He further submitted that the deceased used both a Nokia phone and a Samsung phone. The Nokia phone recovered by the police officer is retained by the police for the purpose of investigation, while the Samsung phone is with the petitioner's family, who are willing to hand it over so that the messages exchanged may be retrieved.

8. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that, since the present investigating officer, namely the third respondent, is in fact pressing the petitioner to settle the matter, there is no likelihood of a proper investigation being conducted by him. He therefore prayed that the investigation be transferred to the CBCID.

9. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the official respondents submitted that the investigation was transferred from the fifth respondent to the third respondent by the order of this Court dated 02.02.2026. The files were received by the third respondent only on 15.04.2026, and the petitioner appeared before him on the same day. Thereafter, on 23.06.2026, the third respondent, along with his subordinates, went to the residence of the petitioner to inspect the scene of occurrence, but was prevented from entering the house.

10. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that none of the complaints lodged by the petitioner makes any reference to the recovery of a Nokia phone from the scene of occurrence by the police officials. On the contrary, the statement given by the concerned police officer to the third respondent clearly reveals that the Nokia phone was handed over to the petitioner, to be produced at the relevant point of time. He submitted that the contention that the deceased used two mobile phones is being raised for the first time: there is no reference to two mobile phones in the first transfer application, in the complaint lodged before the higher officials at the time of the first transfer application, or in the second transfer application, nor indeed in the present transfer petition. According to him, the petitioner is therefore seeking to protract the case.

11. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) further submitted that the second respondent continues, even as of today, to monitor the progress of the case regularly, and that the allegations to the contrary are factually incorrect. He submitted that the allegation that the third respondent is compelling the petitioner to settle the case has been made without an iota of evidence; no such threat or suggestion was made by the third respondent, and he is conducting the investigation fairly. It is the petitioner who is not cooperating with the investigation, in that he did not permit the investigating officer to inspect the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that the marriage between the deceased and the first accused took place on 25.02.2018; that the deceased filed HMOP.No.180 of 2019 on 20.02.2019 seeking divorce; that the first accused filed HMOP.No.63 of 2019 for restitution of conjugal rights; and that the deceased died on 03.05.2019. Apart from the SMS dated 04.01.2019 sent by the husband to the wife, the petitioner has not placed any other message or communication before the respondent police. The police are conducting a fair investigation in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, and there is therefore no necessity to transfer the investigation to the CBCID.

12. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the material records.

(C). Discussion:

13. The primary contention on which the present application has been filed, seeking transfer of the investigation from the third respondent to another officer, is that the investigation has not been conducted in a fair manner and that the present investigating officer is suggesting to the petitioner that he settle the matter after taking back the jewels. There is a counter-allegation from the respondents that it is the petitioner alone who is not co- operating with the investigation, and that he is seeking to protract the case by contending that the deceased used two mobile phones, one of which was recovered and is being retained by the police officials.

14. The petitioner sent a communication dated 04.06.2026 to the first respondent alleging that the third respondent is not conducting the investigation in a fair manner. Apart from this bald allegation, this Court finds no material on record on which to arrive at such a conclusion. Nevertheless, with a view to ensuring a fair investigation, and instead of transferring the case to the CBCID, this Court is of the considered opinion that the investigation ought to be transferred to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, SS Colony Police Station, Madurai District. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, SS Colony Police Station, Madurai District, is suo motu impleaded as the sixth respondent. The investigation shall stand transferred from the file of the third respondent to the file of the sixth respondent. The sixth respondent is directed to conduct a fair investigation and to file a final report within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the records/files from the third respondent. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the sixth respondent in the conduct of the investigation.

(D). Conclusion:

15. With the above observations, this Criminal Original Petition is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.